The Title

The title of the De Interpretatione presents a puzzle. The English 'On Interpretation' and
the Latin 'De Interpretatione' are rough translations of the Greek ( ). We
should ask what this title means, and whether it was the one originally intended by
Aristotle. The title first appears in the list of Aristotle's works given by Diogenes Laertius.
1The discussion by Andronicus of Rhodes of the order and authenticity of the works of
Aristotle unfortunately does not survive; however, references to Andronicus by the
scholiasts suggest that he, too, knew the treatise as On Interpretation ( ).2
No reference to the work by this title is found in Aristotle, and modern commentators
agree that the title is not original.3 However, the absence of the title from Aristotle's
works
cannot be taken as conclusive evidence for its inauthenticity, since no reference to the
treatise is to be found by any other title either. More can be learnt concerning its
authenticity by looking at what the title could mean.
It was generally assumed in antiquity and the Middle Ages that the above title was indeed
the correct one, and it was therefore considered important to explain its meaning. The
treatise was traditionally seen as being a study of the assertion, following on from the
Categories, which deals with single terms, and preparatory to the Prior Analytics, which
is concerned with syllogisms.4
1

Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Philosophers S. 26.

2

See L. MinioPaluello, Aristotelis Categoriae et liber De Interpretatione ( Oxford, 1949),vi

, and anon., "'Scholion on the De Interpretatione'", in C. A. Brandis (ed.), Scholia inArist
otelem, in I. Bekker and O. Gigon (eds.), Aristotelis Opera, iv ( Berlin, 1961), 94.
3

MinioPaluello says that the title seems to have been added by an editor earlier thanAndro
nicus ( MinioPaluello, Aristotelis Categoriae et liber De Interpretatione, vi). Seealso J. L.
Ackrill, Aristotle's Categories and De Interpretatione ( Oxford, 1963), 70.
4

See, e.g., Aquinas, In Aristotelis libros Peri Hermeneias et Posteriorum AnalyticorumEx

positio, R. M. Spiazzi (ed.) ( Rome, 1955).

Accordingly, a number of scholiasts and commentators explain that 'on interpretation'

means 'concerning the assertion'.5 'Interpretation' () is, according to this
tradition, equivalent to 'assertion' ( ), since, according to the
explanation offered by Ammonius, the assertion interprets ( + ) the knowledge
in the soul.6 This tradition is followed by Pacius, who comments that an interpretation
(interpretatio) is a conventional utterance which signifies the experiences of the mind.7
'Interpretation' ('interpretatio') thus enters his usage as a technical term, so that he
entitles the section on complex utterances beginning with chapter 4 "'On Composite
Interpretations'". More recently, Steinthal too follows Ammonius, commenting that, at
least in the title, 'interpretation' must mean 'assertion'.8
This view of the meaning of the title is the result of deciding that the treatise concerns the
assertion, and that therefore the title must mean "'On the Assertion'". The word'
interpretation' thus becomes loaded with technical meaning so as to fit it exactly to the
supposed purpose of the treatise. However, there is no evidence from Aristotle's own
writings to connect the term with the notion of an assertion. Instead, the word is used
broadly for any sort of linguistic expression, and even for animal communication.
'Expression' or even 'language' would therefore serve as a better translation. All birds
have
expression (), he says ( PA 660a35). Speech is distinguished from other forms of
expression on the grounds that it uses words ( Poet. 1450b14). The title of the De
Interpretatione, then, would mean something like "'On Language'", provided we took
language in a generous sense, so as to include what might be called animal language.
Waitz concludes that the title would not be inappropriate taken in this sense, since the
title
would then pertain to spoken communication, the elements of which are dealt with in the
treatise.9 The De Interpretatione is not a treatise about language in general, however, an
dis not even a treatise about human language in
____________________
5

See, e.g., Ammonius, In Aristotelis De Interpretatione Commentarius 4. 27-5. 23,Brandi

s (ed.), Scholia in Aristotelem, 94. 19-21, and T. Waitz, Aristotelis OrganonGraece, 2 vols
. ( Leipzig, 1844), i. 38.
6

Ammonius. In Aristotelis De Interpretatione Commentarius 5. 18.

7

J. Pacius, ( Frankfurt, 1597).

8

H. Steinthal, Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft bei den Griechen und Rmern (Berlin, 1
863): see 230-3.
9

Waitz, Aristotelis Organon, i. 324.

general. Instead, we shall see that its central subject is an analysis of contradictory pairs
ofassertions, considered as relevant to dialectic. This project begins properly with Chapte
r 7,after a preliminary investigation of signification, names, verbs, and how the assertion
iscomposed. These supposedly linguistic chapters take up only a sixth of the treatise. The
y are meant as a preparation for the study of contradiction, and do not form an
independent investigation into language.
The title which the treatise traditionally bears is therefore not an apt one, whether taken
to
mean "'On the Assertion'", or, as on Waitz view, "'On Communication'" or "'OnLanguage'
". The title is not supported in other works of Aristotle, and should be rejected asspurious
. "'On the Contradictory Pair'" ( ) would be the most obvious title
to express the true subject of the treatise.